The Nature of Crime: Different Approaches toward the ... · DOI: 10.7816/nesne-05-11-01 Nesne...

DOI: 10.7816/nesne-05-11-01 Nesne Psikoloji Dergisi (NPD), 2017, Cilt 5, Sayı 11, Volume 5, Issue 11

345 www.nesnedergisi.com

The Nature of Crime: Different Approaches toward the

Causes of the Criminal Act

Fatih ÖZDEMİR1, Bengi ÖNER-ÖZKAN2

ABSTRACT

The purpose of the present review is to organize the theoretical approaches toward

criminal acts and provide a structured source for the use of forensic researchers. The causes of

criminal actions have been studied by different disciplines to decrease crime rates and

understand the nature of the criminal acts. ''Crime can be easily defined as any activity

publicly proscribed by the written laws of a society'' (McGuire, 2004, p. 3). However crime is

a complex issue, and that is why theorists have investigated the causes of the criminal act

using different perspectives and explanations. These explanations can be classified into three

main categories as biological, psychological and sociological. Crime theories are also

categorized based on their levels and scopes, and evaluated as five levels from large scale to

individual factors; (i) societal macro level theories, (ii) community or locality level theories,

(iii) group and socialization influence theories, (iv) crime events and routine activities, and (v)

individual-level theories. It is a fact all theories have a useful function in the literature, but

they should be presented within an organized framework.

Keywords: crime, criminal act, crime theories, theoretical review, forensic research

Özdemir, F. ve Öner-Özkan, B. (2017). The nature of crime: Different approaches

toward the causes of the criminal act. Nesne, 5(11), 345-361.

1Araş. Gör., Uludağ Üniversitesi, Psikoloji Bölümü, psyfatihozdemir(at)gmail.com 2Prof. Dr., Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Psikoloji Bölümü, bengi(at)metu.edu.tr

Özdemir, F. ve Öner-Özkan, B. (2017). The nature of crime: Different approaches toward the causes of the criminal act.. Nesne, 5(11), 345-361.

www.nesnedergisi.com 346

Suçun Doğası: Cezai Eylemin Nedenlerine İlişkin Farklı

Yaklaşımlar

ÖZ

Mevcut taramanın amacı cezai eyleme ilişkin kuramsal yaklaşımları organize etmek

ve adli araştırmacıların kullanımı için yapılandırılmış bir kaynak sağlamaktır. Suç oranlarını

azaltmak ve cezai davranışların doğasını anlamak için cezai eylemlerin nedenleri farklı

disiplinler tarafından çalışılmıştır. Toplumun yazılı hukuku tarafından alenen yasaklanmış her

eylem suç olarak tanımlanabilir (McGuire, 2004). Fakat suç karmaşık bir meseledir ve bu

nedenledir ki kuramcılar farklı perspektifler ve açıklamalar kullanarak cezai eylemin

nedenlerini araştırmıştır. Bu açıklamalar biyolojik, psikolojik ve sosyolojik olmak üzere üç

temel kategoride sınıflandırılabilir. Suç kuramları aynı zamanda seviyelerine ve kapsamlarına

bağlı olarak kategorize edilmekte ve büyük ölçekten bireysel faktörlere olmak üzere beş

seviyede değerlendirilmektedir; (i) toplumsal makro seviyesindeki kuramlar, (ii) topluluk ya

da bölge seviyesindeki kuramlar, (iii) grup ve sosyalizasyon etki kuramları, (iv) suç olayları

ve rutin eylemler, ve (v) birey seviyesindeki kuramlar. Şu bir gerçektir ki tüm kuramlar

literatürde faydalı bir işleve sahiptir, ancak organize edilmiş bir çerçeve içerisinde

sunulmaları gerekmektedir.

Anahtar kelimeler: suç, cezai eylem, suç kuramları, kuramsal tarama, adli araştırma



The comprehension and definition of crime is a complicated process, and that

is why lots of different disciplines such as psychology, sociology, medicine,

philosophy, anthropology, economics, and jurisprudence work together on crime

studies. According to McGuire ''crime can be easily defined as any activity publicly

proscribed by the written laws of a society'' (2004, p. 3). Some specific acts – theft,

fraud, criminal damage – are defined as a crime; because they are prohibited by

laws. However, there are complex relationships between victims, police, criminals,

courts, and penal system. The perception of crime can change from society to

society. Time and current conditions also shape the definition of a criminal act, and

there is not a behavior which is always criminal in everywhere; because crime is a

social product and socially constructed phenomenon. Therefore, society, culture, and

zeitgeist decide which act is a crime.

Different perspectives are used to provide a general crime definition. The

consensus, conflict, and interactionist views of crime are the most popular

perspectives on crime studies (Siegel, 2006). The consensus view supports that

society is an integrated structure and all people decide what will and will not be

tolerated or accepted by society. Crime is an act that is not accepted by society, and

''capable of being followed by criminal proceedings having one of the types of

outcome (punishment, and so on) known to follow these proceedings'' (Kenny, 1936,

p. 16). The act must be legally forbidden, and there must be a criminal intent.

Researchers claim that crimes are simply acts that are believed to be repugnant of

various elements linked to society. The laws and punishments reflect beliefs, norms,

opinions, and values of the large portion of society. There are strong relations among

the definition of the crime, legal system, and social values. The consensus is an

important part of this view; because it means the agreement among a large part of

society. Siegel (2006) also suggests that consensus view is necessary for a fair legal

system; because all types of people within all classes adequately involve rule or

lawmaking process, and laws represent all classes.

Another perspective for making a clear crime definition is the conflict view

that is the opposite perspective of the consensus view. This view proposes that

society is not an integrated structure, and there are different classes and advantaged

and disadvantaged groups. According to the supporters of this view, wealth and

power are not distributed equally within the society. This situation increases the

differences among groups and causes conflict and crime. Moreover, laws tend to

protect the economic, gendered, racial and political advantage and power that has

been established. The Marxist theory also supports the conflict view; capitalist

system created some different classes in the society such as poor, middle or

powerful classes. The powerful class wants to protect or increase their advantages;



so they shape and use laws. Researchers believe that criminal justice system protects

the order and the advantageous position of powerful class. A lot of cases support this

belief; for example, a crime against property is more important than a crime against

people, and lower classes are imprisoned for minor offenses; but powerful classes

receive lesser sentences for more serious crimes (Siegel, 2006). This view says that

the definition of the crime is determined by higher classes, and they decide which

act is a crime.

The interactionist view is the last perspective for crime studies. This view is

affected by consensus and conflict views. It supports that, an objective reality about

crime definition does not exist; because each individual behaves based on their

subjective interpretations of perceived reality. People evaluate their own actions and

others’ behaviors through social views which are learned from society. They observe

the positive and negative reactions of others and understand the social reality. On the

other hand, this reality can be shaped by powerful classes. The definition of crime

from this view is based on the opinion of those who hold social power. Powerful

people want to influence others to feel the same way. Criminals are labeled due to

their negative acts against the social consensus and the social norms. According to

this view, crime has not a true meaning, if society does not have a negative reaction

toward it (Siegel, 2006).

What is Criminology?

The word of criminology is used for the studies about the criminal act. It is

the scientific procedure and investigates both social and individual criminal acts.

Psychology, economics, political sciences, biology and natural sciences work

together in the criminology field. Criminologists try to answer why people do not

obey laws and behave like a criminal. They also deal with the social impact of any

crime.

Criminology appeared in Europe between the late 1700s and the early 1800s.

This discipline can be evaluated into positivist or classical approaches. According to

the positivist school of thought, when a person loses his or her mental control, s/he

will commit a crime. A person may lose control because of inner or outer factors.

Lombroso (one of the fathers of positivist criminology) proposes (1912) that each

individual has different intellectual and physical capacity, so punishments should be

determined based on the person. Positivists also highlight that correction and

treatments must be used for all criminals. On the other hand, based on the classical

approach, each person has the ability to make a decision under any conditions; that

is why a person does not lose his or her decision-making ability. Crime is committed

through free will (Beccaria, 1963; Bentham, 1948). People know what they are



doing or what crime is; they can make a cost-benefit analysis. If there is an

opportunity and criminal act brings more benefit than cost, they prefer to behave

criminally. Moreover, the classical discipline tries to eliminate torture, and develop

the criminal justice system.

The neo-classical approach followed the classical approach and made some

revisions. These researchers support that person can make some irrational behaviors;

because the world is imperfect, and there will always be some mistakes. Besides, in

the 1920s, the Chicago school of thought emerged. Park, Burgess, and McKenzie

(1984) researched some zones where people tend to be more criminally active than

others. This approach analyzed criminal studies from a sociological perspective.

Contemporary criminology tries to understand the motives of criminals, and

these motives can be instrumental or expressive. The instrumental motivation means

that person has more incentive, outside the act itself, to behave like a criminal. This

incentive should be tangible as money. On the other hand, expressive motives are

different from instrumental motives; because some emotions are necessary for

expressive motivation. These emotions can be anger, rage, fear, jealousy or passion.

According to statistics, most of the crimes happen because of expressive motives.

The person loses his or her control for a moment and then expresses a criminal act.

The main purpose of criminology is to understand the causes and

consequences of the criminal act. It tries to evaluate motivations to commit a crime,

and predict behavior. Moreover, it aims to improve the criminal justice system and

appropriate punishment procedures. Criminologists evaluate why a person behaves

like a criminal, and which punishments are appropriate or fair. Criminology tries to

prevent criminal action using this information.

Crime Theories

Criminology attempts to discover the causes of crime and uses some theories

to understand the criminal action. Some criminologists emphasize individual or

personal factors. For example, the selfishness of person is one of the main factors.

People will act in their own interests without being concerned over the impact of this

on others; ''they will almost certainly break the law if they can'' (Rock, 2012, p. 49).

Besides, some researchers support that crime is a consciously planned action

(classical approach), and people evaluate both advantages and disadvantages of their

actions. Moreover, biological and psychological factors also may increase

criminality. In addition, it is a fact that crime is a social product; that is why social

and environmental conditions may affect the criminal act.



Biological explanations of the criminal act

Some researchers claim that people can commit a crime because of the genes

that they have inherited, or some disorders cause the acting criminally such as

attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This disorder reduces the activity

of the brain, and people cannot control their behaviors, and cannot realize the

consequences of their acts. Moreover, some criminologists say that criminal act is

still a behavior and all our behaviors, thoughts or feelings are rooted in our biology;

that is why biological explanations and theories can be useful to understand the

causes of a criminal act (Tooby & Cosmides, 1992).

In the 1950s, biological explanations are used to justify the discriminatory

policy. For example, black children were not successful at school, and they were

defined as less intelligent because of their biological differences; so they were

evaluated as potential criminals (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994). The social, economic

and political factors were not overrated. The misuse of biological explanations

increased prejudices of people about the relationship between biology and

committing a crime, but still there is a growing support for the recognition of the key

role of biology in understanding human behaviors (Raine, 2002).

Most of the biological theories are concerned with genetics. In 1876,

Lombroso (an Italian army doctor) created one of the first modern biological

theories of crime. Through physical measurements, he collected some information

from Italian prisoners and non-criminal military personnel. He claimed that

criminals have some common genetic features, and they do not complete their

biological development fully. Moreover, according to this view, criminals have

some physical abnormalities such as large jaws, high cheekbones, large ears, long

arms, thick skulls and extra nipples, toes or fingers. If a person has five or more of

these qualities, s/he can be a criminal. Lombroso supports that about %40 of all

criminals becomes an offender because of their biological characteristics. In

addition, Goring (1913) highlighted that there is a relationship between low

intelligence and criminal act.

Sheldon (1942) created other important biological theory and searched the

relationship between body shape (somatype) and personality. He analyzed different

body shapes and about 650 personality traits. He concluded that there are main body

shapes which are associated with particular personal characteristics such as the

ectomorph (thin, wiry frame) is introverted and restrained; the endomorph (heavy,

rounded) is sociable and relaxed; the mesomorph (solid, muscular frame) is

aggressive and adventurous. Glueck and Glueck (1950) worked with 500 male

criminals and found same results with Sheldon. On the other hand, West and



Farrington (1973), and Wadsworth (1979) did not find any relationship between

crime and body shape.

Some researchers say that genes, chromosomes and neurotransmitters may

affect the behaviors of a person, and cause a criminal act. Jacobs, Brunton, Melville,

Brittain, and Mcclemont (1965) claimed that XYY chromosome causes aggressive

behaviors, and most of the murderers have an extra Y chromosome. However, some

researchers (e.g., Hollin, 1989) could not find a significant correlation between the

XYY chromosome and the criminal act.

On the other hand, Lange (1931) studied with monozygotic (MZ) and

dizygotic (DZ) twins and tried to understand the effect of genes. When the behaviors

of twins are compared, the behavioral similarity of monozygotic twins was about

%77; but for dizygotic twins, its rate was only %12. The sample of this research was

very small, so other researchers analyzed this assumption with thousands of twins,

and they found a small difference between monozygotic and dizygotic twins.

Besides, the environment can be more important than genetics to determine the

criminal act. It is called epigenetic modification; according to Cadoret, Yates,

Troughton, Woodworth, and Stewart (1995), life conditions and environment of

people may shape their behaviors directly.

In the 1980s, the effect of 5-HTTLPR gene was analyzed; because this gene

is responsible for serotonin hormone, and may be associated with violent behavior in

male criminals. Virkkunen, Nuutila, Goodwin, and Linnoila (1987) found that

violent criminals have less serotonin hormone. Mann, Arango, and Underwood

(1990) researched this assumption experimentally, analyzed the serotonin level in

the brain, and found similar findings. Besides, some evidences were found about

dopamine, and researchers suggested that dopamine increases aggressive behaviors.

Ferrari, van Erp, Tomatzky, and Miczek (2003) concluded experimentally that

dopamine and low serotonin hormone increase criminal acts.

Moreover, the brain was investigated to predict criminal acts. Raine,

Buchsbaum, and LaCasse (1997) compared brain activities of criminal and non-

criminal people. They found reduced activity on both sides of the prefrontal cortex

and in the amygdala, thalamus, and hippocampus of criminal people. Also, in the

thalamus and hippocampus of criminals, there was a difference in lateralization. The

right hemisphere of criminal people was more active than the left; but for non-

criminal people, both sides of the thalamus worked equally, and left side of the

hippocampus was more active than the right. Briefly, the effectiveness of biological



explanations cannot be rejected; because the biological perspectives for criminal acts

supporte the success of psychological and sociological views.

Psychological explanations of the criminal act

Through the collaboration of psychology and criminology, new fields

appeared such as forensic psychology, legal psychology, and criminological

psychology. Criminologists try to understand the causes of a criminal act, and

psychology-based researchers analyze the effects of individual differences,

personality characteristics and psychological factors on criminal acts. That is why

lots of psychological theories were created to explain the behaviors of offenders.

Psychodynamic trait theory was developed by Sigmund Freud in the late

1800s and has become an effective approach in the history of crime studies (Siegel,

2005). According to Freud, the childhood experiences shape the future interpersonal

relationships of people. Id, ego, and super-ego influence behaviors. The id is the

primitive part of our make-up and controls our need for food, sex, sleep and other

basic instincts. The ego controls id by setting up boundaries. Through the super-ego,

people judge the situation, and it reflects morality and rules of the society. This

perspective supports that criminals have id-dominated personalities. If ego does not

control id, the person will behave based on primitive motives, and it may cause

criminal actions (Siegel, 2005). These people have some social and communication

problems, and they cannot control their actions. Moreover, some psychoanalytical

researchers believe that many criminals are driven by an unconscious need to be

punished for previous sins. These people cannot develop appropriate psychological

defense mechanisms, and cannot control their feelings (Siegel, 2005).

Criminologists also aimed to explore the effects of empathy and altruism.

Empathy is emotional and cognitive ability to understand the feelings and distress of

others. Altruism is an active concern for the others’ well-being. Researchers proved

that the lower level of empathy and altruism causes more antisocial behaviors and

criminal actions. Moreover, impulsiveness and negative emotionality are other

effective personality traits. Impulsive people behave without thinking enough about

the consequences of their actions. People, who have negative emotionality trait,

cannot control their behaviors. They are nervous, and have high anxiety; that is why

they give overreaction to other people. Therefore, impulsiveness and negative

emotionality may increase criminal acts.

Lawrence Kohlberg (1958) developed the cognitive development theory. It is

about the development of moral reasoning, and he supported that people organize

their thoughts about morality or laws, and these thoughts can be used as significant



predictors of criminal actions. According to Kohlberg, people pass from three stages

for moral reasoning development. The first step is the pre-conventional level (during

middle childhood), and moral reasoning is based on obedience and avoiding

punishment. Then person passes the second level that is the conventional level of

moral development. During the end of middle childhood, moral reasoning is based

on the expectations of their family and significant people for them. The last step is

the post-conventional level of moral reasoning, and people are able to go beyond

social conventions. Theory supports the value of laws and social system that are

defined based on these steps. If there is a problem during these levels or person does

not complete three steps successfully, s/he can prefer criminal activity.

Learning theory also is used to predict criminal acts. Behavioral psychology

claims that people learn their behaviors through rewards, punishments or other

people. According to the differential association theory, criminal action is a

behavior, and it can be learned like other behaviors. People can learn moral or

criminal acts with classical conditioning, operant conditioning, and modeling.

Classical conditioning is a learning process and happens because of pairing a

reliable stimulus with a response. In the operant learning, the behavior is learned

with reinforcements and punishments. Therefore, the criminal act may increase with

reinforcements or decrease with punishments. Rewards and punishments define the

causes of criminal activity, and who will be a criminal.

Sociological explanations of the criminal act

The environmental factors (including physical, social, economic, cultural and

political environments) may shape behaviors of people. Poor physical, social and

family environments may strengthen the intention toward criminal acts. Living in

poverty, lack of social support and negative family experiences may increase the

possibility of crime. Moreover, unemployment and education levels are other risk

factors for a criminal act. There may be a direct relationship between unemployment

and crime rate. Crime may be the consequence of defective social structure, and

people may learn criminal actions because of the socialization. All of these

conditions caused the creation of sociological theories to understand the criminal

acts.

The strain theory (Merton, 1938) is one of the socio-structural perspectives.

According to this view, social structure within the society can cause criminal acts.

When people experience with strain or stress, they can behave like a criminal to

reduce and escape from negative feelings. If there are different levels and classes in

the society, and these classes are not equal and fair, some people may feel stress and

anger (Cohen, 1955). Societies’ goals such as achievement may be available for only



some classes. Therefore, disadvantaged people tend to express their feelings in

different ways such as crime, suicide, alcoholism. Based on general strain theory

(Agnew, 1992), two general categories of strain can contribute to crime; others

prevent you from achieving your goals, and others take things you value or present

you with negative and noxious stimuli. These goals can be money, status and for

adolescents the autonomy from adults (Agnew, 1992). If there is a limited possibility

to achieve these goals, people can commit a crime and tend to use some illegal ways.

The social learning theory of Bandura (1977) also can explain criminal

activities. Through observing others' behaviors, people can learn this action. Family,

friends, and media can shape behaviors of people. Some theorists claim that if there

is a criminal in the family or close friend group of a person, s/he can behave like a

criminal or if a child watches aggressive programs too much on television, s/he can

indicate criminal acts. This situation can be explained by social learning theory.

Therefore, family characteristics, child-rearing practices, parental criminality, peer

influences, unemployment and school characteristics are some of other factors which

may predict the criminal act.

Control theory is one of the other sociological theories of crime, and it is

different from strain or social learning theories. Both strain theory and social

learning theory analyze factors which push a person to commit a crime, but control

theory uses an opposite perspective. It tries to understand why people conform or

obey rules. According to the control theory, crime does not require any specific

explanation. People know that they can reach their goals easily via criminal acts, or

steal money is easier than earning money. That is why theory focuses on the

question of why people do not commit a crime. Controls and restraints prevent to

commit a crime, but the importance of controls can change from person to person.

Some people are free to engage in crime than others.

Besides, based on the integrated control theory, there are three main types of

control as direct control, stake in conformity and internal control. Direct control is

performed by family, school officials, co-workers, neighborhood residents or police.

They set rules, monitor behaviors, and sanction crime. For example, family members

define rules, prohibit criminal acts, and limit the opportunity of crime. Also, family

members observe and monitor the behaviors of their children to ensure that they do

not engage in crime. Then, if there is a crime, the family punishes this behavior.

Moreover, the strong emotional attachment to conventional others (including

family members, teachers) and actual or anticipated investment in conventional

society (getting an education, building up a business) decrease the possibility of a



criminal act, and it is called as a stake in conformity. Also, internal control can be

effective. It is a function of beliefs about crime and level of self-control. If a person

believes that crime is a bad and negative behavior, s/he will not commit a crime

whereas if a person has low self-control, s/he will have impulsive, insensitive, risky

behaviors, and these will increase criminal actions.

In addition, the reactions of police or other official agencies to crime affect

criminal activities, and this opinion developed labeling theory. According to this

theory, official efforts can increase the possibility of crime. Individuals, who are

arrested or punished, are labeled as criminals. Other people believe that a criminal is

always criminal, and s/he commits a crime again and again. This thought increases

the level of strain of criminal people and decreases their stake in conformity.

Labeling theory was popular during the 1960s and 1970s. Although some researches

have decreased the importance of this theory, it still is one of the frequently used

approaches. Criminologists support that labeling is not only performed by official

agencies, also family, teachers and peer groups can label a person like a criminal. It

is called informal labeling and strengthens criminal actions.

Most of the recent sociological theories focus on the larger social

environment such as communities or societies. Researchers try to understand why

some societies have higher crime rates than others. This question developed the

social disorganization theory. It focuses on the characteristics of these societies

which have high crime rates. Social disorganization is defined as an inability of

community members to achieve shared values (Bursik, 1988). These societies have

poor life standards and limited resource (e.g., money, education). Negative

conditions strengthen lower attachments to the community and increase the

conformity problems. In addition residential instability, ethnic diversity, family

disruption, economic status, population density and proximity to urban areas affect

crime rates directly (Kornhauser, 1978; Sampson & Groves, 1989). These situations

may prevent the integration of people, and increase criminal acts.

Marxist and feminist theories also are mostly used to understand criminal

acts. Marxist theorists explain criminal acts based on class differences and propose

that lower classes or unemployed people may commit crime easily; because these

people may believe that they cannot reach their goals through legal ways. In

addition, because of the limitations and strains, people behave like a criminal to

resist the rules of society. Besides, feminist theories evaluate gender differences to

understand the causes of criminal acts. Theory tries to answer why males are more

involved in most forms of crime. According to feminist theorists, males and females

are different from each other in social learning and control processes. For example,



the socialization of females is passive, and they give importance to the needs of

others more. Females have a stronger attachment to society; so they indicate less

criminal actions than males.

Extra theories to understand the criminal act

Researchers also analyzed the criminal act as a personal choice, and this

choice is based on rationality. Because of these opinions, during the 1970s and

1980s, the criminal decision-making process was overrated, and the rational choice

theory appeared. Based on this view; the human being is a rational actor, rationality

involves an evaluation process (including cost and benefit analysis), and people

choose all behaviors freely. It means that before a person chooses to commit a

crime, s/he evaluates his or her own personal situation (e.g., need for money,

personal values). S/he analyzes the risk of criminal acts, the seriousness of

punishment, the immediate need for criminal gain, the value of the criminal

enterprise and other situational factors such as the position of the target,

effectiveness of police or neighbors (Siegel, 2005).

Theorists tried to find how criminal actions can be less attractive for potential

criminals. Powerful legal system and target hardening may decrease crime rates.

Especially, the effectiveness of laws and punishments decreases criminal actions.

People must fear from committing a crime. When they evaluate costs and benefits of

criminal acts, if costs are larger than benefits, people may not prefer criminal

actions. There is a direct relationship between the fairness of punishments and crime

rates. The fair legal system shapes the decision-making process of potential

criminals positively.

As stated before, the rational choice theory proposes that crime is a calculated

and deliberate action, and all types of crime are committed based on rational

decision-making process to improve personal benefit. However, this theory may

explain better instrumental crimes rather than expressive crimes. Instrumental

crimes may involve rational thinking and plan such as tax evasion, traffic violations,

drunk driving, and corporate crime; but expressive crimes include emotion, and a

person cannot think rationally during committing a crime. These people do not think

consequences of their criminal acts, and that is why punishments may not be

effective to prevent expressive crimes. Besides, routine activity theory is one of the

sub-theories of rational choice theory, and it provides simple and powerful insight

into the causes of crime. According to this view, crime depends on available

opportunities (Felson & Cohen, 1980). If the target is not protected enough or if the

reward is valuable, crime may happen; so, crime just needs an opportunity. Routine

activity theory has three aspects as a motivated offender, a suitable target and the



lack of a capable guardian. Based on the theory, influential people in the lives of

potential criminals affect their behaviors. For children, they can be parents, teachers,

close relatives, peers whereas, for adults, these people are partners, close friends,

family, and children. If influential people (handlers) are weak or absent, crime will

be possible. Controllers or guardians also play an important role in the theory. They

try to protect potential victims from a crime. Police, and security guards are formal

guardians; but parents, neighbors, and friends are informal guardians. Strong

guardians may decrease the possibility of crime. This theory is used to explain the

rise of crime during the 1960s. In the 1960s, females participated in the labor

market, and homes were left without a capable guardian. Also, traditional

neighborhood decreased, and the number of big cities increased. Parents lost the

power over their children. All of them decreased the effectiveness of handlers and

guardians. People found a lot of opportunities to commit a crime, and this situation

motivated them.

Another perspective is the life course theory. During the 1960s, theorists

evaluated lives of people in structural, social and cultural contexts. This theory

analyzes the life history of individuals and tries to understand how early or

important events affect their future decisions and behaviors. Trajectories and

transitions are two main concepts of theory. Trajectories involve long-term patterns

of events as family history whereas transitions are short-term events as parenthood,

marriage or divorce. Turning points are major transitions that cause a sharp change

in the life course of person (Elder, 1985). This change may influence the attitudes of

people toward the criminal act. Criminal actions cannot be understood with limited

dimensions. Reasons of crime can be hidden in the context of life. If the context is

analyzed and negative points are found, the possibility of criminal acts may

decrease.

The Levels of the Criminal Act Explanations

A Huge number of factors affects criminal acts directly and indirectly.

Theories focus on different aspects of the criminal action and aim to explain the

causes of crime with different views and reasons. In order to prevent the chaos in the

literature, some researchers tended to classify these theories. Bernard and Snipes

(1996) classified theories into two main categories as individual-difference and

structure-process theories. Besides, according to McGuire (2004), crime theories can

be divided into five different and interconnected levels as societal macro level

theories, community or locality level theories, group and socialization influence

theories, crime events and routine activities and lastly, individual level theories.

They move from the large-scale, society-wide ''macrocosmic'' level to the

''microcosm'' of the individual person.



In the societal macro level, crime is evaluated as a large-scale social

phenomenon. There are different groups in the society such as advantaged and

disadvantaged groups, majority and minority, powerful and poor classes, males and

females. These groups may behave based on their self-interests, and criminal acts

may be preferred to reach their own goals. Moreover, unfair social systems and

unequal distributions of power in the society may increase the possibility of criminal

action. Conflict theory, strain theory, sociological control theory, Marxist and

feminist theories are evaluated within this category.

The second group is community or locality level theories. In this level, crime

is analyzed according to a geographical location within societies. Criminologists try

to understand why crime rates are high in some places and cities of society. The

conditions or characteristics of places (e.g., unemployment rate, poor life standards)

may cause criminal actions. Environmental theories and differential opportunity

theory can be examples of this category.

In the group and socialization influence level, theorists analyzed why some

people commit a crime and others do not prefer criminal action in the same location.

They support that smaller proximate units shape people’s activities. These units can

be family and peer groups. They play an important role in the social learning

process. Through socialization process, people learn their roles in society. If a

criminal act is favorable in family and peer group, the possibility of criminal action

will increase. Moreover, in order to have a high status in their group, teenagers can

behave like a criminal. Sub-cultural delinquency theory, differential association

theory, and social learning theory are some well-known examples of this level.

Crime events and routine activities is the fourth level category. In this level,

the criminal event is evaluated in detail. Criminologists believe that criminal event is

not only the overt behavior of offender; it also has different motivations, processes,

and factors. Opportunities, a suitable target, weak or ineffective guardians and

handlers cause criminal activity. Moreover, costs and benefits of crime affect the

possibility of criminal action. Routine activity theory and rational choice theory are

found in this category.

The last category is individual level theories. In this view, intra-individual

factors influence criminal actions. These factors can be biological or psychological.

For example, genes, brain, body shape, chromosomes, hormones, neurotransmitters,

traits, thoughts, emotions, and self-control level of a person influence their

behaviors. Psychological control theories, cognitive social learning theory and

biological theories are some examples of this category.



Conclusion

The causes of the criminal act have been discussed by various scientific

disciplines. Researchers tended to rationalize the question of ''why people commit a

crime'' using different theoretical perspectives; because there are numerous factors

which influence individuals and their decisions toward the choice of the criminal act.

The current review aimed to present different theoretical approaches toward the

criminal act within a harmony, and provide a structured source for forensic

researchers.

The limitations of the current article should be taken into consideration. The

paper includes a small part of the theoretical approaches which predict the criminal

act. The content of the article should be enriched with new theories in the further

studies; because the related literature needs a comprehensive review on the issue of

criminal act. Secondly, all of these theories focus on different points of the criminal

act. Researchers should try to understand the reasons of the criminal act within a

holistic view. Independently proposed factors and theoretical perspectives may be

highly related with each other and may be complementary in the criminal action

process. That is why the usage of different theories and focusing on different factors

within an integrative view may provide a better insight to predict criminal acts.

References

Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency.

Criminology, 30, 47-87. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1992.tb01093.x

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Beccaria, C. (1963). On crimes and punishments. New York: Macmillan.

Bentham, J. (1948). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. New

York: Macmillan.

Bernard, T. J., & Snipes, J. B. (1996). Variables-centered approach. In F. T. Cullen,

& P. Wilcox (Eds.), Encyclopedia of criminological theory (pp. 94-95).

London: Sage.

Bursik, R. J. (1988). Social disorganization and theories of crime and delinquency:

Problems and prospects. Criminology, 26(4), 519-552. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-

9125.1988.tb00854.x

Cadoret, R. J., Yates, W. R., Troughton, E., Woodworth, G., & Stewart, M. A.

(1995). Genetic-environmental interaction in the genesis of aggressivity



and conduct disorders. Arch Gen Psychiatry, 52(11), 916-924. doi:

10.1001/archpsyc.1995.03950230030006

Cohen, A. K. (1955). Delinquent boys: The culture of the Gang. IL: Free Press.

Elder, G. H. (1985). Life course dynamics: Trajectories and transitions 1968-1980.

New York: Cornell University Press.

Felson, M., & Cohen, L. E. (1980). Human ecology and crime: A routine activity

approach. Human Ecology, 8(4), 389–405. doi: 10.1007/BF01561001

Ferrari, P. F., van Erp, A. M., Tornatzky, W., & Miczek, K. A. (2003). Accumbal

dopamine and serotonin in anticipation of the next aggressive episode in

rats. Eur J Neurosci, 17(2), 371-378. doi: 10.1046/j.1460-

9568.2003.02447.x

Glueck, S., & Glueck, E. (1950). Unraveling juvenile delinquency. USA: Harvard

University Press.

Goring, C. B. (1913). The English convict; a statistical study. London: H.S.M.

Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class

structure in American life. New York: Free Press.

Hollin, C. (1989). Psychology and crime: An introduction to criminological

psychology..London: Routledge.

Jacobs, P. A., Brunton, M., Melville, M. M., Brittain, R. P., & Mcclemont, W. F.

(1965). Aggressive behaviour, mental sub-normality, and the XYY male.

Nature, 208, 1351-1352. doi: 10.1038/2081351a0

Kenny, P. (1936). Outlines of criminal law (15th ed). Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Kohlberg, L. (1958). The development of modes of thinking and choices in years 10

to 16. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Chicago, Chicago.

Kornhauser, R. (1978). Social sources of delinquency. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

Lange, J. (1931). Crime as destiny. London: George Allen & Unwin.

Lombroso, C. (1876). L'uomo delinquente. Milano: Hoepli.

Lombroso, C. (1912). Crime: Its causes and remedies. Montclair: Patterson Smith.

Mann, J. J., Arango, V., & Underwood, M. D. (1990). Serotonin and suicidal

behavior. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 600, 476–484. doi:

10.1111/j.1749-6632.1990.tb16903.x



McGuire, J. (2004). Understanding psychology and crime: Perspectives on theory

and action..Berkshire: Open University Press.

Merton, R. K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review,

3(5), 672-682. doi: 10.2307/2084686

Park, R. E., Burgess, E. W., & McKenzie, R. D. (1984). The city. London: The

University of Chicago Press.

Raine, A. (2002). Biosocial studies of antisocial and violent behavior in children and

adults: A review. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30, 311-326.

Raine, A., Buchsbaum, M. S., & LaCasse, L. (1997). Brain abnormalities in

murderers indicated by positron emission tomography. Biol. Psychiatry, 42,

495-508. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3223(96)00362-9

Rock, P. (2012). Sociological theories of crime. In M. Maguire, R. Morgan, & R.

Reiner (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of criminology (5th Ed.) (pp. 39-80).

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sampson, R. J., & Groves, W. B. (1989). Community structure and crime: Testing

social-disorganization theory. American Journal of Sociology, 94(4), 774-

802. doi:10.1086/229068

Sheldon, W. H. (1942). The varieties of temperament: A psychology of

constitutionaldifferences. New York: Harper & Brothers.

Siegel, L. J. (2005). Criminology: The core. (2th Ed.). London: Wadsworth

Publishing.

Siegel, L. J. (2006). Criminology: Theories, patterns, and typologies. (9th Ed.). St.

Paul: West.

Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1992). The psychological foundations of culture. In J.

Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary

psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 19–136). New York:

Oxford University Press.

Virkkunen, M., Nuutila, A., Goodwin, F. K., & Linnoila, M. (1987). Cerebrospinal

fluid monoamine metabolite levels in male arsonists. Arch Gen Psychiatry,

44(3), 241–247. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1987.01800150053007

Wadsworth, M. (1979). Roots of delinquency. London: Martin Robertson.

West, D. J., & Farrington, D. P. (1973). Who becomes delinquent? London:

Heinemann.

Date post:	01-Feb-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

The Nature of Crime: Different Approaches toward the ... · DOI: 10.7816/nesne-05-11-01 Nesne...

Documents